isn't Abraham Maslow's heirarchy of human needs a predictor or the very things that this posting cites. Maslow's heirarchy seems to say that our society has evolved to the point where all of the other human needs have been met. We take for granted physiological needs, safety needs, love/belonging (tribe, society, etc,) the need for esteem (within the tribe). These things having been met, what remains is self-actualization.

Bush has silenced Libby. To be sure, Libby will continue his appeal. He still faces a fine and probation. By continuing his appeal, he can take the 5th. Had Bush pardoned him, he could have been called before the judiciary committee and would not have been able to take the 5th. Its a crass and cynical act on Bush's part.

As for Libby, there are plenty of fat neocons who will underwrite the cost of his lawyers while he appeals. Cheney will probably be the guest speaker at fundraising dinners for just this cause. At the very least, Cheney owes that to Libby. After all, Libby took the fall for Cheney.

Consider the outcomes of both options.

First, had Bush pardoned Libby, he would lose 5th amendment protection if called to testify before a Senate or Congressional committee, and could be compelled to testify, since he is protected against double jeopardy.

But by commuting, Libby retains his 5th amendment rights so long as his case remains on appeal. So you can be sure that he will continue his appeal, and that it will drag out.

Thus does the coverup of Cheney's crimes go on.

I assume you are referring to the pardon of Mark Rich. If so, you would be wise to do a little more homework.

Wait, I'll do it for you.

It is customary for outgoing presidents to pardon people convicted of various crimes. The standard procedure is for the outgoing president to receive recommendations for pardons, then make his selections.

In the case of Mark Rich, the recommendation for pardon came from a Mr. I. Lewis Libby.

Nest time, do your own homework. I don't have time to do it for every neocon uninhibited by facts.

When I was kid in high school, I plagiarised an english lit paper written by my sister, then a freshman in college who had won freshman honors for the paper I had copied word for word. The nun who was my english lit teacher, gave "my" paper an F. Naturally, I was pissed but couldn't explain why. So when I went to see her I groused that she had marked up only the first few pages, and accused her of reading only the first few pages.

Her answer to me was: "You don't have to eat the whole egg to know its rotten."

This is precisely the feeling I got, deep in my gut, reading Paglia's responses to the letters she cites. I couldn't get past the second page.

Mr. Majd writes a thoughtful piece on getting out of Iraq. But in saying that the only way of Iraq is to negotiate with Iran, Mr. Majd assumes that Bush & his neocon pals actually want out of Iraq. Nothing they have said or done since invading Iraq provides any evidence to that effect.

Tom Delay was the one who outed Bob Livingston to Larry Flynt after he had been chosen as Speaker, in order to clear the way for Hastert, Delay's reliable water boy. True or not, Hastert's departure marks the true end of the Delay congressional machine.

If I were, I'd pray that Giuliani is the Republican nominee. Nothing could be simpler than the task of taking this guy down. All one needs to do is stick a microphone in front of any NY cop or fireman and let the camera roll. You don't even have to coach them or write scripts for them. Just let them have at it. What could be simpler? Or more cost effective?

he'll make it back to the NFL after cooling it in stir. His problems with the law thus far are with the feds. The state boys are just weighing in and today they say they will indict on cruelty to animal charges, a felony with a five year penalty.

Big boss man of a dog fighting ring, eh? His current contract is worth $29mm (though the Falcons are sure to want a refund). Does anyone think the dogs paid better than $29mm?

Dump Reid and Pelosi, get leaders leaders

did Clinton, Levin, or both have taken contributions from Barbour, Griffiths & Rogers, the fancy neocon influence peddling firm to which Cole refers as representing Ayad Allawi. At least Allawi is smart enough to understand the real way to affect regine change in Iraq.

Sidney Blumenthal and Glenn Greenwald are the best of Salon, and the two of them alone are worth the cost of a premium subscription. But I think Blumenthal missed the mark today when he writes that Bush rejected a Sunni offer to quell the insurgency because he thought he could achieve total victory.

One need only examine the many documents published by the neocons and the PNAC to realize that they have long advocated for a large base of operations in the middle east from which to project U.S. power. That advocacy predates the current Bush administration. The Sunni offer would have required a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, an outcome completely at odds with such a goal. That, I believe, is the real reason Bush rejected the Sunni offer.

Having lived in the S.F. Bay Area longer that Feinstein has held public office, I have long believed that she is a Democrat only because membership in the party was the only way she could have gotten elected in this most liberal city and region.